Tesla Repays Department of Energy Loan Nine Years Early • Hacker News Board

Re: Tesla Repays Department of Energy Loan Nine Years Early

#151

Post by cma » Thu, May 23, 2013, 12:29 PM UTC

sammathews wrote: post #142

ghshephard wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the case that we have to blindly praise a company - but calling something as significant as raising $450mm in the public markets to pay back the government loans a "PR Ploy" saddens me, because that was a very real, and impressive accomplishment. Musk/Tesla aren't without their issues, and, as John Siracusa showed us on "Hypercritical" - you can simultaneously appreciate something but still point out all of…

Ultimately Tesla is in the business of public opinion. Paying back the goverment far ahead of schedule when there is no need to necessarily do it, considering fairly favourable terms for the loan, can be considered a "PR Ploy" to play to that public opinion. After all, wouldn't they have just stated the fact and not compared themselves to other car manufacturers, even going to lengths to spell out the fact that they…

Didn't the loan place a lot of restrictions on them? You have to trade off the low interest rate against that, especially when the rate they are getting with the bonds isn't that much worse.

Re: Tesla Repays Department of Energy Loan Nine Years Early

#152

Post by mncolinlee » Thu, May 23, 2013, 12:35 PM UTC

Shivetya wrote: post #53

mncolinlee wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's something bizarre about griping that they reached profitability from green credits. To clarify, these green credits were voluntarily paid by OTHER CAR COMPANIES like Fiat who did not innovate enough to develop their own green cars. In essence, these credits work similarly to carbon credits or sulfur credits. They are NOT paid by taxpayers or by the government in any way. It was a capitalist regulation in Cali…

they are not free, they are paid by any consumer who directly or indirectly has a relationship with someone who purchases a vehicle from one of the makers who is paying these credits. Voluntary my ass. If they don't pay what happens? Your fined. Its a tax. It is paid by consumers because they buy cars. If anything its California's way of having people in other states fund their initiatives. I guess kudos can go to Mu…

I suppose you would argue that we should all just pay all externalities created by the free market even if they would simply bankrupt or kill us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

For example, if HSBC knowingly funded murderous, criminal gangs around the world, they should be allowed to finance killing because it helps them pursue profit?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/outrageo...

Car companies had a clear choice. They could give up one profitable market or they could take appropriate actions contributing to the cause of reducing smog-related deaths in California. There is a very huge public cost for eliminating these regulations, as was PROVEN to everyone in the 1990s when most green cars were killed on the spot when earlier regulation ended.

Re: Tesla Repays Department of Energy Loan Nine Years Early

#153

Post by imgabe » Thu, May 23, 2013, 12:38 PM UTC

cdugg wrote: post #74

I don't remember getting a check from tesla nor was I asked permission to loan them money . The whole absurdity of "greater common good"

Do you remember when you voted for the representatives you appointed to make those decisions for you?

Re: Tesla Repays Department of Energy Loan Nine Years Early

#154

Post by sageikosa » Thu, May 23, 2013, 1:12 PM UTC

jabits wrote: post #115

sageikosa wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You must remember that when the government decrees that everyone must do something or else and everyone does it, it is considered voluntary.

Yes, because our government is there by our voluntary action. If we find our government is making us do things involuntarily, we can change it.

That's what the signers of the Declaration of Independence thought as well.

However, my point wasn't about whether the government could be changed, how it could be changed, or what it could be changed to; but that its monopoly on the use of force doesn't make the actions people take based on its rules voluntary.

Re: Tesla Repays Department of Energy Loan Nine Years Early

#155

Post by rossjudson » Thu, May 23, 2013, 2:00 PM UTC

BHSPitMonkey wrote: post #111

ghshephard wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's these type of posts that make it to the top of a thread that make me not want to check into HN. Can't we celebrate a company, that was called out as a bad stimulus target during the presidential debates actually paying back all their loans ahead of time? If there was one place I hoped I could go to celebrate an innovative company's success, it would be HN. I take particular issue with, "Make no mistake, this is…

> It's these type of posts that make it to the top of a thread that make me not want to check into HN. Posts that provide insightful explanation about the story? Yes, less of that and more unqualified positive gushing, please. There is nothing wrong with offering an informed opinion, even if (especially if) it's not in full alignment with the prevailing attitude of the hivemind.

This particular "informed opinion" contained nothing other than a repetition of the facts already present in the press release, packaged together with a little disdain-flavored "commentary".

Re: Tesla Repays Department of Energy Loan Nine Years Early

#156

Post by roguas » Thu, May 23, 2013, 2:08 PM UTC

nathan_long wrote: post #78

cdugg wrote: post #74

I don't remember getting a check from tesla nor was I asked permission to loan them money . The whole absurdity of "greater common good"

What's absurd about it? If pollution has bad and expensive effects (asthma, flooding, crop loss), those creating it should pay to help deal with it. It's like paying to have your own trash picked up instead of dumping it in your neighbor's yard. If you doubt that pollution is bad, that's another story, but you're in the minority and outvoted.

Of course they should pay. Money should go to people who suffer from pollution.

Its not like paying to have your own trash picked up. When you pay to have trash picked up you can choose a company, you can do it yourself, you can produce no trash etc.etc.

Why should one pay companies to make cars they will never buy? One that has never added his 5cents to the pollution is beyond reason. But then again democracy is just another form of tyranny.

Re: Tesla Repays Department of Energy Loan Nine Years Early

#157

Post by josefresco » Thu, May 23, 2013, 2:29 PM UTC

JunkDNA wrote: post #112

MarkMc wrote: post #57

Mitt Romney must hate Tesla - it is a textbook example of why governments should sometimes mess with free markets. If the government had not provided this loan Tesla would have gone bankrupt and the US would have lost a significant high-tech asset. 99% of the time the market is more efficient than government, but that other 1% counts for a lot.

The right wing argument against government meddling isn't that it doesn't work sometimes (broken clocks being right twice a day and all that). The complaint is that, in aggregate, for every Tesla there are countless Solyndras. Governments aren't good at picking investments for the exact same reason individual people are not good at picking investments: predicting the future is hard. It's doubly hard when governments…

"The complaint is that, in aggregate, for every Tesla there are countless Solyndras"

The problem with that argument or complaint is the evidence against it...

"The Energy Department has said that losses in the $34 billion loan portfolio amount to about 2% of the total."

This program might be a success so far, I cannot speak to past government investments which might back the "right wing" view better.

Re: Tesla Repays Department of Energy Loan Nine Years Early

#158

Post by josefresco » Thu, May 23, 2013, 2:32 PM UTC

epicureanideal wrote: post #137

twoodfin wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you really think the best way to do that is to subsidize toys for rich folks?

As far as I know, the subsidy is the same regardless of the price of the vehicle, so it doesn't apply only to "toys for rich folks". Also, I wouldn't say that a Tesla is a toy for rich folks. Many reasonably successful software engineers could afford one if they didn't want to spend their disposable income on other forms of entertainment.

"Entertainment for the upper middle class" there fixed it for you.

Re: Tesla Repays Department of Energy Loan Nine Years Early

#159

Post by codex » Thu, May 23, 2013, 2:35 PM UTC

noname123 wrote: post #23

The reason why Tesla is able to pay the Dept of Energy loan early is because of a secondary stock and bonds offering worth about >850+ million. In another words, Tesla is raising funds by generating more debt (from bondholders) and diluting share value (from shareholders), roughly about 3.5 mil out of 40 mil float, and using that money to pay the US govt. TSLA rose on the news despite diluting shareholders is because…

There's one more reason to repay the loan early: it prevents the US from exercising 3M stock warrants worth about $250M. The fund raising also allowed Elon to borrow money against his other holdings to purchase more Tesla stock off the open market.

Agreed that sustainable profitability is an open question: because Tesla knew they would be raising more money after their first profitable quarter, they could pull put all the stops for maximum profitability, and go back to spending more once the round was in the bank. Will that happen? Unclear. But when you raise money you usually spend it.

Re: Tesla Repays Department of Energy Loan Nine Years Early

#160

Post by JackFr » Thu, May 23, 2013, 2:40 PM UTC

EGreg wrote: post #133

benaiah wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't mean to imply I have the perfect system (though it obviously doesn't contain any errors I'm aware of), but rather that advocating a free market does not imply what he says it implies. Advocating a free market does not imply endorsing bribery and fraud. That was the extent of my point there.

I agree with you but the elephant in the room is, although you may be against "bribery and fraud" how would a community actually stop someone with enough money from doing just that, unless you do in fact have governments and regulations? What is going to balance the money signal? It's not enough to say that you are not for it, but what mechanism would the system actually have to deal with such abuses?

The irony is implicit -- the way to avoid the corruption of government bureacracies is to increase the size and power of said bureacracies.